Minecraft Name: knears2000 Suggestion: To make the no-kit SG chance from 1/8 to 1/3 Reason: I've been playing SG, and have now gone 15 games in a row without a kit free. I don't think this is healthy for SG. I feel that moving up to 33.3% chance would allow for more fun amongst users, and still keep the value of kits. Any Other Information: Nope. Link To This Plugin: N/A
I've come to realize that will never happen to due major stubbornness. So the next best thing we can do is just increase the no-kit chances.
I didn't pay to only use my kits 2/3 of the time, there would also be little point in investing in ++ kits due to kit frees reducing the cooldown on kits back to where you can use them again. -1
Yet your yet to understand that you're killing the community with these kits. Ever since kits have been added, player count has dropped significantly. 2/3 of the time is better than never, right?
It's not never though, I've had examples of getting 4 kit free games in a row, in your example it just seems you got unlucky. The comment about killing the community I'd need to see sort of evidence that compares me typing /kit in an SG match to our player count.
Ok, stay at spawn for a day, and listen to the local chat, that's my evidence. Four kit free games in a row? That's just as uncommon as my example. Currently, it's about 1 out of every 10 games I play is a kit free. That's extremely low. I've got a ++ kit myself, and I don't have an issue with this. SG is about skill, not how quickly you can click a mouse.
I am no SG player but I understand the concept of pay to win and currently SG is the definition of p2w. The person who though of the kits in SG is... well... a greedy moron. The idea that someone should pay money so they have some advantage over the others is killing PvP and kits should be removed once and for all and maybe then more people will play me included.
That's called bad luck. You can't base an argument around statistics without testing said statistics. Kits were added long before the player count started to drop. Kits have been around since before I joined in july 2013, and that's back when we had 300 players on average. ^^ You can't assume correlation is causation.
as @oxwood2 said that they have been around for a long time. I have been around to see the hunger games without kits. I actually agreed with kits at that time. I still am fine with them, except for bfr (because of stregnth 2 opness, it wasn't op until 1.8 if I am correct. Back year or to ago, it didn't affect too much) On to the main topic though, I think it needs to be higher percent, but not 1/3... 1/4 would be the highest I'd go
I wouldn't mind seeing raised chances of no kit, no kits are fun and test real skills (This all coming from someone donating hundreds toward kits) Yes I enjoy my kits, but I like no kits as well
+1, I might spend some time SGing some more if I know I can play a no kit game without wasting 2 hours to get into one. (This is coming from a $200+ kit donor)
To start with, I do like the idea of increasing the chances of a no kits game. Let's try sticking with 3 games played to make this statistical model smaller and simple. Let's use the current 1/8 chance to start with. Chance of all 3 games to be kit games : 66.992%, 70% rounded. (343/512 x 100 , or ((7/8)^3) x 100) Chance for all 3 games to be no kit games : 0.195 , 0.2% rounded. (1/512 x 100, or ((1/8)^3 x 100) Chance for at least 1 no kit game among the three: 28.7&, 29% rounded. Conclusion : Getting one no kit game is possible, but all 3 to be kits is more likely to happen Now, we'll compare results if we made the chances go down to 1/4 (We have 4 arenas now, it's sensible to reduce it to this number). Chance of all games to be kit games: 42.1875%, 42% rounded. Chance of all games to be no kit games: 1.56%, 2% rounded. Chance of at least 1 no kit game: 42.1875%, 42% rounded Conclusion: The chances of getting 1 no kit game among three SG games is equal to all 3 of them being kit games, I believe 1/4 is a suitable number to use.
